Ravi Kant Jha vs The State of Bihar

Mihir Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following reliefs prayed in this writ application:--

"To appoint the petitioners in Class-III post on compassionate ground as the petitioners are eligible for appointment on such post and several other persons whose cases are exactly similar to the writ petitioners have already been given appointment on compassionate ground over Class-III post in different districts of the State of Bihar.

To hold that appointment of several persons, whose cases are identical with that of the writ petitioners, on compassionate ground over Class-III post providing for regular pay scale and not giving the same treatment to the writ petitioners is gross case of discrimination and the same violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."

From the reading of the averments in the writ petition it would appear that after the petitioners have already been appointed on compassionate ground as Prakhand Teacher/Nagar Teacher they have now a vision of being appointed again on compassionate ground against the regular post of teachers.

The petitioners, however, forget that in view of the statutory provisions made in the Rules ever since 1.7.2006 every dependant of a teacher of regular cadre who has died-in-harness, his/her ward can get appointment on compassionate ground only on the post of Prakhand/Panchayat/Nagar Shikshak.

In that view of the matter, this Court will not find any error in the appointment of the petitioners whose appointment has already been made as is evidenced from the statement and the chart enclosed in paragraph No. 3 of the writ application, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:--

Once this aspect becomes clear that all the petitioners being wards of deceased teachers have been appointed either as Prakhand/Nagar Shikshak in terms of Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules, 2006, there would be no difficulty for this Court now to reject their claim for their fresh appointment on compassionate ground against a sanctioned post of regular teacher or any Class-III post. First of all the post of regular teachers has already been abolished and now post of teacher in each and every school is being filled up by way of Prakhand/Panchayat/Nagar Shikshak in terms of Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules, 2006 as amended from time to time. Thus in the absence of regular post, it would be a valid ground for denying appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioners.

The petitioners however claim that they ought to have been appointed on any other Class-III post. That however was impossible in view of the statutory Rule which reads as follows:--

In fact a similar provision has been made for the post of Nagar Shikshak in terms of Rule-13 of Bihar Nagar Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan avam Sewa Sart) Niyamawali, 2012, which reads as follows:--

In view of the above, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that the petitioners'' claim for appointment on compassionate ground on regular post of teachers cannot be allowed. This aspect of the matter has already been settled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh, , holding that there would be no ''endless compassion''. In fact, the Apex Court in the aforesaid case also held that once having been appointed on compassionate ground and also accepted the terms and conditions of appointment, there would be no question of consideration for appointment of the petitioners afresh on higher post or more beneficial post.

As this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in some cases the persons have been appointed on Class-III post. This Court can only say that the petitioners'' case all of whom, for appointment of compassionate ground in the year 2006 or thereafter after coming into force the Statutory Rules has to be governed by the Statutory Rules. If in absence of statutory Rules someone has been given Class-III post, that cannot be made precedent for issuance of a direction for appointment on Class-III post. Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be made to work in a negative manner as was held in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and Others, .

This Court must hold that the claim of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground has already come to an end, the day on which they were appointed after giving their option and willingness of joining the said post. It is not in doubt that the petitioners in terms of 2006 Rules had given their consent in writing to work on the post of Prakhand/Panchayat/Nagar Shikshak. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.